"But you must remember, my fellow-citizens, that eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty, and that you must pay the price if you wish to secure the blessing. It behooves you, therefore, to be watchful in your States as well as in the Federal Government." Andrew Jackson

Saturday, September 25, 2010

Why America is Deeply Divided and How to Heal It Constitutionally - http://agenda21isevil.com/
Dr. Michael Coffman one of the leading experts on United Nations Agenda 21 and how it is being used to undermine our society through the phony environmental agenda, Growth Management/Smart Growth, etc. He has a Ph.D. in Forest Science and has 25 years of experience in ecosystem research in both the public and private sectors. He played a key role in stopping the ratification of the Global Biodiversity Treaty in the United States Senate within hours of the cloture vote. He is currently President of Environmental Perspectives, Inc. (EPI) and CEO of Sovereignty International. He has recently released the book Restoring America: Why America Is Deeply Divided and How to Heal It Constitutionally.

For those of you interested in getting to know Dr Michael Coffman, you can listen to these Dr. Stan Radio Liberty http://www.radioliberty.com/ interviews where he is talking about his new book. For those of you who cannot go to see Doctor Coffman personally this will be better than nothing.

Wednesday, September 8, 2010

Posted: 09/07/2010 01:00:00 AM MDT
Twenty-three Senators have recently thrown their support behind an innocent looking bill that will, among other things, create an illegal immigration superhighway, remove access to natural resources, and ultimately strip ranchers of their grazing rights, all under the auspices of preserving wilderness.

When New Mexico s Senators Jeff Bingaman and Tom Udall introduced S.B. 1689 in September 2009, immigration was barely a blip on the public s radar. Over the last year, other issues such as stimulus spending, health care, and cap-and-trade have stolen the spotlight. Their harmless sounding bill, which makes land in New Mexico part of the National Wilderness Preservation System and the National Landscape Conversation System, received virtually no attention. However, it has percolated to the top as the markup of the bill has been approved (23-0) and is headed to the Senate floor.

Now that immigration is in the spotlight as non-border states mimic Arizona's controversial immigration law, polls show that the majority of the public wants to stem the tide of illegal immigrants. S.B. 1689 will disappoint that majority.

Unless people speak up, this New Mexico bill will sail through on a professional courtesy to Sens. Bingaman and Udall. Senators give lip service to the demands for closed borders, yet 23 voted to move S.B. 1689 to the floor. Supporters, including, McCain, Alexander, Landrieu, and Lincoln, need to be held accountable.

In southern New Mexico the proposed Organ Mountains Desert Peaks Wilderness National Conservation Area sets aside a long north/south strip of land just miles from the border that contains all the elements that make it perfect for the movement of both human and drug trafficking: wilderness/de facto wilderness safe havens; east /west highway access; rugged and complex north/south mountain and drainage orientation; and high, strategic points of observation.

In northern New Mexico the Bingaman/Udall partnership co-sponsored S.B. 874 (El Rio Grande Del Norte National Conservation Establishment Act) again impacts land near the border the border of Colorado and New Mexico. This land is rich in natural resources. If Bingaman and Udall have their way, these resources will never be developed, needed jobs will not be created, and state revenues will be reduced.

In both the north and the south, the parcels proposed for conservation contain both state and federal lands that are leased for farming, ranching, and oil and gas extraction. Specifically stated within S.B.1689 is the withdrawal of Operation of the mineral leasing, mineral materials and geothermal leasing laws. The wilderness of 1964 specifically forbids the use of motorized vehicles. The elimination of motorized vehicles devastates land management and the ability to pursue traffickers.

In the immigration superhighway, The Organ Mountains Desert Peaks Wilderness Act, Border Patrol will be prevented from chasing traffickers in motorized vehicles. Will illegals be concerned about damaging the wilderness? No. They will have a fleet of vehicles mirroring the situation in Arizona. Meanwhile, the Border Patrol will have their mobility and access destroyed. (Editor s note: Sen. Bingaman s office has told the Sun-News that the bill has language guaranteeing motorized access in wilderness areas for the Border Patrol.)

Additionally, the idea of preserving wilderness is typically about maintaining land in its original, pristine condition. The nearby Gila Wilderness has become a near biological desert with reduced grass and production resulting from the elimination of cattle grazing and the misconceived fire management plan that was implemented as early as the 1920s. Without the water and infrastructure provided for the cattle, the deer concentrations long ago moved out. Science is proving that the restoration of many grasslands must have man s intervention.

Are the senators trying to block access to America s natural resources and kill potential job creation for hard working Americans while creating an illegal immigration super highway, or is this another unintended consequence? Are they simply too deep in the pockets of the environmental industry? Tell the senators who voted to move S.B. 1689 out of committee not to vote for its passage when it makes it to the floor. America doesn t want another immigration super highway and at this point in history, we surely don t need to be focusing on locking up more lands.
Marita Noon is the executive vice president of Energy Makes America Great Inc., the advocacy arm of CARE (Citizens' Alliance for Responsible Energy), the New Mexico nonprofit organization advocating for citizens right to energy that is abundant, available, and affordable. CARE works on energy issues state, region and nation wide. Find out more at www.EnergyMakesAmericaGreat.org

"Competent Founding-Era scholars largely agree on what most of the original Constitution’s provisions mean. Much of the disagreement among constitutional writers results from unfamiliarity with the historical record or with eighteenth-century law.

We will never be absolutely certain of the complete meaning of every constitutional clause. But we can reconstruct most of the original Constitution’s meaning with clarity and confidence."

I have to respectfully correct a misconception that exists to this day about "life time" judgeships". The US Constitution says they serve "during good behavior", nothing more nothing less. Thus, those who have sat on Federal courts, over the past century-plus been undermining our nation and states (and ALL of them are under the same stricture of demeanor), including most especially SCOTUS, should have been, or now should be, impeached and thrown in jail for treason. "Good behavior" is the term, not life -- tho' that sounds good to me, as long as those traitors serve it in prison.

Monday, August 30, 2010

Having had many conversations recently regarding primary election process with my husband and others, I have come to the position that political parties are private, not public, clubs. As such those clubs should not be wasting public time or public monies to do anything that is solely an internal matter; deciding candidates to run in elections for public office. Following is an excerpt from a letter to the editor on this topic written by Dick Wells.

"Since political parties are private clubs; and as such, they are necessarily like any other "special interest" group; therefore, it is perfectly permissible for them to exclude valid candidates from their "forums." Is it not possible for someone else, other than the power parties, to conduct a forum to offer a balanced opportunity to all the candidates?

It does however, beg question of why the public bears the cost of selecting the party's candidates in a primary election, if we cannot hear from all the candidates who can receive our vote in November. Moreover, is there not doubt concerning whether or not a voter is really a party member when he casts his vote in the primary, in that party? Nothing beyond personal integrity will keep a voter from voting in the opposition party's election to enhance his party's candidate's chances by ruining a stronger, opposition-candidate's chances. That being the case, what makes anyone think the people made "their" choice in picking a party's candidate in a primary election?

I believe that there is a strong argument for abolishing the primary election entirely, unless it is in each party's central committee meeting, and leave the public's money completely out of the picture until the general election. Let each political party decide amongst themselves, who their candidates will be. Think about it: no endless campaigning, until the month or two before the general election, unless you are attending party meetings."
Dick Wells - Thompson Falls

Tuesday, August 17, 2010

Death tax
Income tax - 16th amendment
Federal Reserve
Lost State's right to balance Congress - 17th amendment Prohibition (we all know how well THAT worked) - repealed 14 years later, after a miserable failure -- BUT, it set the stage for the largest expansion of tyrannical government spying and despotism the world has ever seen (no apology to FBI managers, many of whose underlings deserve praise for doing their jobs well, but some deserve only derision - Horiuchi and Ruby Ridge come to mind....)

Can you think of other things to add? Please do so and reply with them as well -- and please pass this on to your other email contacts.

Friday, July 23, 2010

Though I do not watch FOX on a regular basis - due to inability to receive it by antenna - I am not particularly a fan of the personality of Glenn Beck though he is serving the Cause of Freedom greatly in bring to his viewers attention certain untaught and unreported historic factoids - important stuff that is affecting all of us and has led to the current dissolution of our Constitutional Republic of theses United States in America. I learned that Beck's recent program July 15, 2010 was devoted to 'Colonel' Edward Mandell House and his role in the establishment of the Council on Foreign Relations. Below are two links to further elaborate on CFR and 'Colonel' House that I encourage all to read.

Thursday, July 22, 2010

Political Correctness Police Force has issued an all points bulletin for the following people of interest. If you know of any racists who fit this updated definition and description ,please , notify the proper authorities immediately at 1-762-542-2258. You might be a racists if you think our Liberal leaders are wasting too much of our your hard earned money. You may be a racist if you tell anyone about it. You may be a racist if you think our Government is out of touch with the average American You may be a racist if you want the people in Washington to just leave you alone . You may be a racist if you think people should quit expecting Handouts from Washington.. You may be a racist if you would like to pay less in taxes. You may be a racist if you like your current health care plan. You may be a racist if you don’t trust the Government. You may be a racist if you did not vote for Barack Obama. You may be a racist if you think the Cambridge police acted intelligently. You may be a racist if you don’t believe the Government should have bailed out Wall Street, Detroit, and the banks. You may be a racist if you believe that 40 million people added to a Government run health plan with the same amount of doctors is going to lead to rationing of health care. You may be a racist if you think our country is already too deeply in debt . You may be a racist if you think you can work hard to get ahead so you can keep your own money. You may be a racist if you watch Fox News. You may be a racist if you think it’s your choice whether you share your money with the poor or not. You may be a racist if you feel we need less Government in our lives. You may be a racist if you think ACORN is a corrupt organization. You may be a racist if you think Reverend Wright’s sermons were hateful You may be a racist if you think people from minorities can be racists. You may be a racist if you think America is a Christian Nation. You may be a racist if you think we should not be apologizing to the Middle East for anything. You may be a racist if you are in the Tea Party. You might be a racist if you can think for yourself. You may be a racist if you believe in the American Dream. You may be a racist if you believe in working for a living. You may be a racist if you believe In God We Trust. And you probably are a racist if you believe that people that believe this are racist. Remember to call 1-762-542-2258 or 1-#$#-KGB-ACLU to report these despicable criminals!

Wednesday, June 9, 2010

Here in Sanders Co. Montana the Democratic Party instructed their voters to 'crossover' and vote the Republican ballot in order to defeat conservative candidates. It worked too I am sorry to say. There is a battle raging between the R.I.N.O.s and former Democrats that populate the Sanders Co. Central Republican Committee and the Sanders Co. Conservatives [T.E.A. group] - the Democrats took advantage of this - and I suspect the Sanders Co. CRC is complicit.

Thursday, May 13, 2010

The following commentary from the Executive Director of the Montana Contractor's Association was aired on Montana Public Radio last week.

Public Radio Commentary

May 6, 2010

Cary Hegreberg, Montana Contractors’ Association

“The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.”

That famous quote by former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher is vividly playing itself out in Athens, Greece for the whole world to watch and learn from. The Greek government simply ran out of working people’s money it could distribute to vast numbers of over-paid government employees and other demanding citizens, in the form of generous pensions, excessive paid vacations, free health care, ridiculously early retirements, and various other entitlements.

The Greek population’s insatiable demand for other people’s money led to an insolvent government, resulting in other European people now working to maintain the unearned, undeserved, but expected lifestyle of the Greeks, many of whom are protesting in the streets simply because the people bailing them out expect a few sacrifices.

Socialistic thought creeps into a political system at the margins. We learn that a majority of us can elect a candidate who will give us something we want—usually something that belongs to someone else. It was earned, paid for, maintained, and improved by someone else. We may not get it all at once, but we can get little slices of it incrementally by demanding public policy changes of our elected officials.

Ms. Thatcher’s quote could be amended to say, “the problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s property.”

In communities throughout Montana, people are demanding a sliver, or sometimes a hunk, of the value of someone else’s property, and county commissioners in particular appear all too eager to appease this incremental erosion of private property rights.

Legitimate subdivisions are denied because people living in adjacent subdivisions don’t want new neighbors. They believe they are entitled to the open view and a place to walk their dogs, even though someone else pays taxes on that land. Rural residents, opposing a gravel pit on a neighbor’s property, are running to County commissioners with surprising success, demanding instant zoning restrictions on gravel extraction so they can continue enjoying the values provided by someone else’s property.

One of the most egregious examples is unfolding in Missoula County, where commissioners are entertaining, if not advancing, a notion they should provide a public good by seizing the property rights of Plum Creek Timber Company. Through an audacious proposal to create a so-called “Resource Protection Area,” the county would zone tens of thousands acres to preclude the property owner from selling parcels for residential use.

The loudest proponents of this idea of course, are the people who have already carved out their small parcel of paradise. While alleging Plum Creek would degrade the wildlife resource by subdividing, these enlightened residents are obliviously flushing sewage into Placid Lake and spewing petroleum into the pristine water through their outboard motors.

If the County establishes a zoning district solely to preclude the timber company from realizing the development value of the land it owns, what’s to stop Plum Creek from leasing the recreational rights to an outfit like Cabellas, as has been recently rumored? Just because the company has generously allowed hunters, fishermen and recreationists to use hundreds of thousands of acres for free in the past, this is a privilege, not a “right” or an entitlement.

If Missoula County uses zoning to deny Plum Creek one way of extracting value from the property it owns, why wouldn’t the company seek to realize the value in other ways, such as leasing a bundle of rights to someone like Cabellas? If Montana sportsmen lose access to Plum Creek lands, they can thank Missoula County Commissioners, because the law of unintended consequences most surely will kick in.

County governments must be kept in check. Private property rights are fundamental to our capitalist system that rewards people for their efforts. If we allow county commissioners, or any other elected officials, to continually seize the rights of one property owner and hand those rights at no cost to someone else, we are on a slippery slope. If we want to know where the slope takes us, just watch or listen to KUFM for tonight’s evening news.

Representing Montana’s commercial/industrial and public works construction professionals, I’m Cary Hegreberg with the Montana Contractors Association.

Initiative 160 prohibits the trapping of all wildlife by any means on public lands in Montana. This initiative is strongly supported by animal rights activists who want public land trapping to stop, regardless of the damaging consequences it will have on Montana businesses and our economy as a whole.

Montanans have a rich history of working in industries, particularly agriculture, ranching and forestry, all of which will suffer if Initiative 160 passes. This initiative will also remove a critical wildlife management tool from home owners, ranchers, farmers and pest control professionals.

Wednesday, May 5, 2010

Apparently members of Congress have too much time on their hands. Just a few short weeks after ramming ObamaCare through, Senators Kerry, Graham, and Lieberman are already preparing for their next attack on the American taxpayer: the poorly named "American Power Act."

A far better name for this legislation would be the "American Power Grab." Little more than cap and trade in disguise, the bill would be a massive job-killing energy tax. In fact, the largest tax hike ever, and would hit the poor and middleclass, who spend a higher proportion of their income on essentials like electricity and fuel, the hardest. when American families are already struggling to make ends meet in our current economic downturn.

Cap and trade, or cap and tax, would mean sky high energy prices for consumers, but a new government slush fund for Washington. A twenty-seven cent "Fuels' Fee" on every gallon of gasoline included in the bill means not just higher prices at the pump, but higher prices on shipping and food production. It's hard to think of an area of life these higher costs won't affect. Higher energy costs will put the cost of doing business through the roof and send American jobs overseas at a time of record unemployment.

Altogether, this is far too high a price to pay for nothing in return. Any impact the legislation might have on global climate temperatures is too small to measure. The risks, on the other hand, are clear.

Friday, April 30, 2010

Democrats are getting cranked up on their written comment efforts. The points they make are trying to ensure that gerrymandering can happen in 2010, especially the "fair and competitive" requirement, the 5% deviation and keeping the current districts as a starting point (something the Democrats made sure was not a criteria last time because they didn't like the 1990 districts).

Support fair non-partisan legislative districts!

*One percent or less variation in the population size of districts: It's not fair if one representative has to represent 9400 people, and the next one up the road only has 8600. The people in the smaller district get easier access to their government. The shape of the units should be a close to even sided as practical…

*No political data should be used to draw districts. Districts should be drawn to represent people, not partisan politics

*Don't keep the current districts: The current districts divide communities in two; they have wildly varying population sizes. - in general they're not unbiased. No more pie shaped politically motivated districts, please!